A work of absolute beauty, just an incredible film experience. I felt very much like i was watching a culmination of all the cinematic techniques created over the last century collected into this collage of styles and stories, all shot gorgeously and told and acted extremely well with an outstanding soundtrack that soared over each timeframe, frankly it's incredible how well such a gigantic project came together and completely absorbed me for the whole of it's near 3 hours.
Yes, admittedly some of the segments seemed out of tone with the rest (Jim Broadbent's publisher story was hilarious but was odd placed next to the other darker timeframes) but every little story had its own charm and emotion - Ben Whishaw could've commanded an entire feature with his own agonising tale - and the manner in which each was cut away and then blended into the next was done masterfully, especially the cross cutting of the stories into the same "moment" at points while linked by the voiceover, which was the best use of this technique i've seen. Honestly, for me personally this was a modern masterpiece and i will remember this for a long time.
It appears there has been no more divisive film of the last year than the Wachowski Siblings and Tom Tykwer's adaptation of David Mitchell's "unfilmable" multi-timeline novel; professional reviews have crossed the whole gamut - five stars to one star - Ebert called it one of the best of the year, Time magazine the worst. So, is it a "masterpiece" or a "disaster"?
I've yet to read the novel which Natalie Portman apparently handed Lana Wachowski during the filming of "V For Vendetta" inspiring this adaptation. I gather the central idea of the book is slightly different from this film version, but the concept of six nested timelines all closely interlinked and influencing each other is intact. In essence the film aims to show the progression of a soul through time, evolving or devolving according to the actions of the respective character, and positively influencing the actions of the main character in the next timeline (these characters are marked by a comet shaped birthmark, more than likely representing the person pushing things forward, making a difference, "blazing a trail" so to speak). And those six timelines are exquisitely created; a 19th Century ocean voyage, 1930s Cambridge/Edinburgh, 1970s San Francisco, modern day London, 22nd Century "Neo-Seoul", and post-apocalyptic Earth - 100 years after "The Fall". The visuals of "Neo-Seoul" are the stand-out, it's a sumptuously created work of imaginative sci-fi; equal parts Huxley, Bradbury, Philip K Dick with Blade Runner and TRON inspired visuals.
Cast wise it's a truly eccentric line up; you'd probably never expect to see this cast working in the same film as an ensemble but the surprising strangeness actually works well. Many of the performances are brilliant, and everyone gets a chance to shine at some point in the film playing up to six characters apiece, usually under a ton of make up. Some of those make up jobs are exceptional, some much less successful, but part of the fun is spotting who is playing what and working out who someone is. In a couple of instances you'd never know until the closing credits. For a technically sophisticated, expensive film it's a pleasingly old fashioned concept, depending on the versatility of the cast, evoking the multi-rolling of Alec Guinness in "Kind Hearts and Coronets" or Peter Sellers in "Dr Strangelove". Of the many characters we see Tom Hanks' future valley man Zachry, Halle Berry's journalist Luisa, Ben Whishaw's composer Frobisher, James D'Arcy's scientist Sixsmith (young and old), Doona Bae's genetic clone Sonmi-451, Jim Sturgess' lawyer Ewing and Hugo Weaving's embodiment of evil Old Georgie are all terrific, many are the central character of their respective times. What is fascinating is the way each actor's string of characters progresses or recedes - Hanks' characters take the longest journey from murderers and thieves to a scientist who tries to do the right thing to a superstitious tribesman who finds the courage to become a protector and saviour, finally he is our storyteller. Hugh Grant's unscrupulous businessmen and lecherous consumers eventually become a literal consumer of men, a mute cannibal. Hugo Weaving's string of bad guys ends up with him simply dwindling into a ghost of evil in a society's mythology.
Another exciting aspect is the fascinating, multi-layered connections between the timelines and the way they impact upon each other, to pick them all up would take multiple viewings. Names and numbers repeat themselves - the "fabricant" Sonmi-451 shares the numbers of her name with Luisa's apartment number (both a clear reference to seminal work of science fiction, independent thinking and revolt "Fahrenheit 451"), the number six appears again and again - there are six timelines, six main characters, Frobisher is writing the Cloud Atlas Sextet for six soloists, his lover is Sixsmith... What could be confusing and off-putting is mostly dazzling as long as you are prepared to engage in the film and pay attention; this is truly intelligent cinema, which has something thrilling to say about the impact of all our actions upon the world, echoes that we are unaware of, along with the permanence and importance of artistic expression in all of its forms. I was thinking during the film how the great visuals and the clever make up and crossing ideas were happening at the expense of actual heart, but then the emotional pay-offs happily come in the respective conclusions.
For me three hours in the cinema flew by, testament to how well paced and involving each of the stories are, each adding an element of historical romance, sci-fi action, broad comedy or political thrills as necessary and never outstaying their welcome. If I had to offer some criticisms I'd say the Riddley Walker-esque new language spoken by the post-apocalyptic tribe is impenetrable at times; some of the make-up is extremely distracting, there's a line of unnecessary prosthetic noses and bad contact lenses, and the attempts to alter Berry and Bae's features to Caucasian doesn't convince; Jim Broadbent is fine leading in his own timeline which is intentionally comic ("I know! I know!") but he borders on pantomimic elsewhere. This are minor issues in the face of the whole. I think it's a great shame that the mainstream awards snubbed this film so roundly and many have been put off by the mixed reviews from seeing this film on the big screen; I believe it will find its audience and eventually be recognised for the brave, sprawling, fascinating, flawed but exciting work that it is. I can't wait to watch it again.
Cloud Atlas is not an easy watch by any means, you need to prepare yourself to think a little and pay attention a lot. It takes its time building up because there are several plot lines and dozens of characters to develop, but when it goes off - WOW.
I spent much of the movie trying to connect the characters played by the same actor wondering if it was their soul living another life, and trying to connect the dots to follow that soul through time and see how their life experiences of the past made them who they are in the future.
I enjoyed the challenge of "getting" this film. Not as complex as "Upstream Color" or other existential films, but it was just twisty enough to have some closure and still be left wondering a little.
lengthy and the scope of it all made the film buckle quite a few times but it pulls it off and manages to evoke many emotions with many memorable scenes. but frankly all the prosthetics were really getting on my nerves. there's only so many things you can get a korean girl to look like and a spanish and english woman is not either of them. frankly i don't know what the fuss was about the complexity of the plot. seemed quite simple to me. if you can't keep track of this plot, what are you going to do if you watch something REALLY complicated like primer?
I hated the first hour because everyting kinda gets thrown at you. In the first few minutes there have already passed so much characters and storylines it immediately annoyed me and the following hour is indeed very confusing and hard to keep up with. Too bad they made the narrative go so fast, because at the end, it felt like i missed lots of important plotpoints which were introduced at the beginning of the movie.Because i missed these things it was also hard to 'connect the dots' over all 6 storylines, something i hope to achieve after i revisited the movie.
Thought it would've been better for the story to slowly, and at least more gradually, introduce the audience to the 6 different storylines. Also the rapid switching between timelines shouldn't have been so dramatic at times and could have done without the obvious pattern. Whenever, or at least a lot of times, because after a while it became kinda predictable and annoying, there was mentioning of an object, say a door, they would cut to a different timeline where a door opened. A good idea, but shouldn't have been used so often.
I was really relieved towards the end that you could see everything coming together. Overall i thought, like a lot of other people, it was a beautiful,yet somewhat complex, movie. Loved it because it was thought-provoking and i don't see nearly enough of such movies as i would want to these days.
Hmm not too sure what to make of this one. I think I enjoyed it. I probably missed out on several of the plot intricacies (annoyingly had to watch it over two days) All I can say is I don't remember watching anything like it before and I will most certainly be rewatching it soon.
Very interesting movie, something which can't be said for 98% of the garbage being released these days.
Trivia: This seems to be the "unofficial check" that appears on the most lists. Currently, 308. From there, the top 10 goes "50/50," "Source Code," "Blood Diamond," "The Butterfly Effect," "Easy A," "Corpse Bride," "Pride and Prejudice" (2005), "Stoker" and "Crazy, Stupid, Love." These rankings will change with time, naturally.
An epic story of humankind in which the actions and consequences of our lives impact one another throughout the past, present and future as one soul is shaped from a murderer into a savior and a single act of kindness ripples out for centuries to inspire a revolution.
The synopsis says all. Worth-watching and underrated.
One of the most ambitious films of the last few years; six different stories, all related but all distinct. I was very impressed with most of the movie - the storytelling, the script, some of the performances (Ben Whishaw in particular stood out in his lead role as Robert Frobisher, as well as Hugo Weaving throughout). Tom Hanks, on the other hand, gave an uncharacteristically over-acted performance that stood in stark contrast to the rest of his career, and Halle Berry is simply not an interesting actress to watch on screen for me. Additionally, whoever was responsible for makeup on this film deserves to be fired; this film featured some of the worst makeup jobs I've ever seen, especially when attempting to paint actors into a different race (Hugo Weaving as an Asian particularly stood out).
However, for the most part this was a very engaging film that I really enjoyed watching, and flew by despite its three hour length. It may be some time before I revisit this film, but I certainly intend to.
Finally watched cloud atlas, and regret that I didn't get to watch it at the cinema. I loved it , it is way ,way ahead of it's generation and time. Joins the likes of Metropolis and Blade Runner. It will have a cult following in the years to come, I have my money on that.It is not for the mediocre or for everyday average person.They will be bored to death watching it. Having said that,if these guys want to understand the movie , I highly recommend that they watch it twice atleast. They would appreciate it more.
I didn't see what aspect of life and soul was left out in the movie.I believe in the times when you have movies likee thor , avengers and what not made in two parts -- this movie definitely deserved to be made in two parts.By doing so they would have touched and captured the average audience too. But it needs real guts to attempt such a subject,who better to do it than the Wachowskis -- hats off to their narration.I bet the likes of Nolan, Aronofsky , Fincher (who btw, I admire) or jackass Cameron wouldn't even dare to attempt such a gargantuan,intriguing and complex plot.The story was so well woven together and everything in place.Highly recommend.
Fit perfectly to inner "something"... And the end was so familiar... to maybe something already experienced.
The Soul.
The Universe.
The Journey. Eternal.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 53
moontopmountain
A work of absolute beauty, just an incredible film experience. I felt very much like i was watching a culmination of all the cinematic techniques created over the last century collected into this collage of styles and stories, all shot gorgeously and told and acted extremely well with an outstanding soundtrack that soared over each timeframe, frankly it's incredible how well such a gigantic project came together and completely absorbed me for the whole of it's near 3 hours.Yes, admittedly some of the segments seemed out of tone with the rest (Jim Broadbent's publisher story was hilarious but was odd placed next to the other darker timeframes) but every little story had its own charm and emotion - Ben Whishaw could've commanded an entire feature with his own agonising tale - and the manner in which each was cut away and then blended into the next was done masterfully, especially the cross cutting of the stories into the same "moment" at points while linked by the voiceover, which was the best use of this technique i've seen. Honestly, for me personally this was a modern masterpiece and i will remember this for a long time.
dombrewer
It appears there has been no more divisive film of the last year than the Wachowski Siblings and Tom Tykwer's adaptation of David Mitchell's "unfilmable" multi-timeline novel; professional reviews have crossed the whole gamut - five stars to one star - Ebert called it one of the best of the year, Time magazine the worst. So, is it a "masterpiece" or a "disaster"?I've yet to read the novel which Natalie Portman apparently handed Lana Wachowski during the filming of "V For Vendetta" inspiring this adaptation. I gather the central idea of the book is slightly different from this film version, but the concept of six nested timelines all closely interlinked and influencing each other is intact. In essence the film aims to show the progression of a soul through time, evolving or devolving according to the actions of the respective character, and positively influencing the actions of the main character in the next timeline (these characters are marked by a comet shaped birthmark, more than likely representing the person pushing things forward, making a difference, "blazing a trail" so to speak). And those six timelines are exquisitely created; a 19th Century ocean voyage, 1930s Cambridge/Edinburgh, 1970s San Francisco, modern day London, 22nd Century "Neo-Seoul", and post-apocalyptic Earth - 100 years after "The Fall". The visuals of "Neo-Seoul" are the stand-out, it's a sumptuously created work of imaginative sci-fi; equal parts Huxley, Bradbury, Philip K Dick with Blade Runner and TRON inspired visuals.
Cast wise it's a truly eccentric line up; you'd probably never expect to see this cast working in the same film as an ensemble but the surprising strangeness actually works well. Many of the performances are brilliant, and everyone gets a chance to shine at some point in the film playing up to six characters apiece, usually under a ton of make up. Some of those make up jobs are exceptional, some much less successful, but part of the fun is spotting who is playing what and working out who someone is. In a couple of instances you'd never know until the closing credits. For a technically sophisticated, expensive film it's a pleasingly old fashioned concept, depending on the versatility of the cast, evoking the multi-rolling of Alec Guinness in "Kind Hearts and Coronets" or Peter Sellers in "Dr Strangelove". Of the many characters we see Tom Hanks' future valley man Zachry, Halle Berry's journalist Luisa, Ben Whishaw's composer Frobisher, James D'Arcy's scientist Sixsmith (young and old), Doona Bae's genetic clone Sonmi-451, Jim Sturgess' lawyer Ewing and Hugo Weaving's embodiment of evil Old Georgie are all terrific, many are the central character of their respective times. What is fascinating is the way each actor's string of characters progresses or recedes - Hanks' characters take the longest journey from murderers and thieves to a scientist who tries to do the right thing to a superstitious tribesman who finds the courage to become a protector and saviour, finally he is our storyteller. Hugh Grant's unscrupulous businessmen and lecherous consumers eventually become a literal consumer of men, a mute cannibal. Hugo Weaving's string of bad guys ends up with him simply dwindling into a ghost of evil in a society's mythology.
Another exciting aspect is the fascinating, multi-layered connections between the timelines and the way they impact upon each other, to pick them all up would take multiple viewings. Names and numbers repeat themselves - the "fabricant" Sonmi-451 shares the numbers of her name with Luisa's apartment number (both a clear reference to seminal work of science fiction, independent thinking and revolt "Fahrenheit 451"), the number six appears again and again - there are six timelines, six main characters, Frobisher is writing the Cloud Atlas Sextet for six soloists, his lover is Sixsmith... What could be confusing and off-putting is mostly dazzling as long as you are prepared to engage in the film and pay attention; this is truly intelligent cinema, which has something thrilling to say about the impact of all our actions upon the world, echoes that we are unaware of, along with the permanence and importance of artistic expression in all of its forms. I was thinking during the film how the great visuals and the clever make up and crossing ideas were happening at the expense of actual heart, but then the emotional pay-offs happily come in the respective conclusions.
For me three hours in the cinema flew by, testament to how well paced and involving each of the stories are, each adding an element of historical romance, sci-fi action, broad comedy or political thrills as necessary and never outstaying their welcome. If I had to offer some criticisms I'd say the Riddley Walker-esque new language spoken by the post-apocalyptic tribe is impenetrable at times; some of the make-up is extremely distracting, there's a line of unnecessary prosthetic noses and bad contact lenses, and the attempts to alter Berry and Bae's features to Caucasian doesn't convince; Jim Broadbent is fine leading in his own timeline which is intentionally comic ("I know! I know!") but he borders on pantomimic elsewhere. This are minor issues in the face of the whole. I think it's a great shame that the mainstream awards snubbed this film so roundly and many have been put off by the mixed reviews from seeing this film on the big screen; I believe it will find its audience and eventually be recognised for the brave, sprawling, fascinating, flawed but exciting work that it is. I can't wait to watch it again.
audiopile
Cloud Atlas is not an easy watch by any means, you need to prepare yourself to think a little and pay attention a lot. It takes its time building up because there are several plot lines and dozens of characters to develop, but when it goes off - WOW.I enjoyed the challenge of "getting" this film. Not as complex as "Upstream Color" or other existential films, but it was just twisty enough to have some closure and still be left wondering a little.
aniforprez
lengthy and the scope of it all made the film buckle quite a few times but it pulls it off and manages to evoke many emotions with many memorable scenes. but frankly all the prosthetics were really getting on my nerves. there's only so many things you can get a korean girl to look like and a spanish and english woman is not either of them. frankly i don't know what the fuss was about the complexity of the plot. seemed quite simple to me. if you can't keep track of this plot, what are you going to do if you watch something REALLY complicated like primer?8/10
heat_
Ugly make-up, a mix of cliche themes, distracting editing. Postpone watching as long as you could...Metalmidget
I hated the first hour because everyting kinda gets thrown at you. In the first few minutes there have already passed so much characters and storylines it immediately annoyed me and the following hour is indeed very confusing and hard to keep up with. Too bad they made the narrative go so fast, because at the end, it felt like i missed lots of important plotpoints which were introduced at the beginning of the movie.Because i missed these things it was also hard to 'connect the dots' over all 6 storylines, something i hope to achieve after i revisited the movie.Thought it would've been better for the story to slowly, and at least more gradually, introduce the audience to the 6 different storylines. Also the rapid switching between timelines shouldn't have been so dramatic at times and could have done without the obvious pattern. Whenever, or at least a lot of times, because after a while it became kinda predictable and annoying, there was mentioning of an object, say a door, they would cut to a different timeline where a door opened. A good idea, but shouldn't have been used so often.
I was really relieved towards the end that you could see everything coming together. Overall i thought, like a lot of other people, it was a beautiful,yet somewhat complex, movie. Loved it because it was thought-provoking and i don't see nearly enough of such movies as i would want to these days.
elcid
Six trivial stories, about evil and good, make a memorable film? Definitely not.MrDoog
Hmm not too sure what to make of this one. I think I enjoyed it. I probably missed out on several of the plot intricacies (annoyingly had to watch it over two days) All I can say is I don't remember watching anything like it before and I will most certainly be rewatching it soon.Very interesting movie, something which can't be said for 98% of the garbage being released these days.
Toastinator
A movie of almost 3 hours long, set in several different time periods and I feel like nothing happened in the film at all.Ebbywebby
Trivia: This seems to be the "unofficial check" that appears on the most lists. Currently, 308. From there, the top 10 goes "50/50," "Source Code," "Blood Diamond," "The Butterfly Effect," "Easy A," "Corpse Bride," "Pride and Prejudice" (2005), "Stoker" and "Crazy, Stupid, Love." These rankings will change with time, naturally.Mic
The synopsis says all. Worth-watching and underrated.
eduaudy
I have just fall in love with this film...nymusix
One of the most ambitious films of the last few years; six different stories, all related but all distinct. I was very impressed with most of the movie - the storytelling, the script, some of the performances (Ben Whishaw in particular stood out in his lead role as Robert Frobisher, as well as Hugo Weaving throughout). Tom Hanks, on the other hand, gave an uncharacteristically over-acted performance that stood in stark contrast to the rest of his career, and Halle Berry is simply not an interesting actress to watch on screen for me. Additionally, whoever was responsible for makeup on this film deserves to be fired; this film featured some of the worst makeup jobs I've ever seen, especially when attempting to paint actors into a different race (Hugo Weaving as an Asian particularly stood out).However, for the most part this was a very engaging film that I really enjoyed watching, and flew by despite its three hour length. It may be some time before I revisit this film, but I certainly intend to.
ganesh
Finally watched cloud atlas, and regret that I didn't get to watch it at the cinema. I loved it , it is way ,way ahead of it's generation and time. Joins the likes of Metropolis and Blade Runner. It will have a cult following in the years to come, I have my money on that.It is not for the mediocre or for everyday average person.They will be bored to death watching it. Having said that,if these guys want to understand the movie , I highly recommend that they watch it twice atleast. They would appreciate it more.I didn't see what aspect of life and soul was left out in the movie.I believe in the times when you have movies likee thor , avengers and what not made in two parts -- this movie definitely deserved to be made in two parts.By doing so they would have touched and captured the average audience too. But it needs real guts to attempt such a subject,who better to do it than the Wachowskis -- hats off to their narration.I bet the likes of Nolan, Aronofsky , Fincher (who btw, I admire) or jackass Cameron wouldn't even dare to attempt such a gargantuan,intriguing and complex plot.The story was so well woven together and everything in place.Highly recommend.
airi86ja
One of the best I've seen recently.Fit perfectly to inner "something"... And the end was so familiar... to maybe something already experienced.
The Soul.
The Universe.
The Journey. Eternal.
More than "loved it".
Showing items 1 – 15 of 53